Re: [802SEC] Interpretation of current P&P
Thanks for your vigorous support.
At 18:30 31/10/2007, Carl R. Stevenson wrote:
>I therefore vigorously support Tony's request for a review and
>interpretation of this matter at the opening EC meeting of the Nvember
>plenary, to be voted and minuted in the minutes of the opening EC meeting.
>(If Tony does need a 75% approval vote of 802.1 members to run for another
>term, I think he needs to get that at the November plenary in preparation
>for March.) I believe that this is important enough that even if it takes us
>an hour, and requires that we defer some opening reports or other
>perfunctories, we should allow the required time to provide Tony with a
>clean and unambigous interpretation that he can rely upon.
I hate to mention it, but even if there is the need for this 75%
vote, there are potential problems with the wording of the P&P (and
I'm sure "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" aficionados will
appreciate the point I am making here!). What the P&P says is:
"An individual who has served as Chair or Vice Chair of a given WG
for a total of more than
eight years in that office may not run for election to that office
again, unless the question of
allowing that individual to run for election again is approved by a
75% vote of the WG one
plenary in advance of that election."
What does "...the question of allowing that individual to run for
election again is approved by a 75% vote..." mean? Does it mean that
the WG approves asking the question? In which case, what question is
being asked, and what does approving asking the question mean? Is the
question "We allow XX to stand again" or is the question "We don't
allow XX to stand again"? In the latter case, the only way to satisfy
the P&P (which calls for 75% approval of the question) is to deny the
individual the right to stand again. I.e., the wording is about a
meta-question, rather than the question that needs to be put to the
WG. So, maybe a WG is being required by the P&P to put the following
to the vote:
"802.XX approves the question of allowing <<Insert name here>> to run
for election again."
and, although the result (if it was approved by 75%) would strictly
meet the requirement of the P&P, I'm not at all sure what that vote
would actually mean.
The answer is 42 (or in this case, 75%). Now what was the question?
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.